Assabet River NWR Final CCP - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November 26, 2003
every hunt to be a safe incident free experience for themselves and anybody they share the
woods with.”
Respondents also offer suggestions for ensuring safe hunts, such as banning buckshot and
limiting magazine capacity. Some respondents suggest using testing, expense, and the
willingness of hunters to assist with Refuge goals to ensure that only a safe and ethical subset
of hunters have access to the Refuge.
Advocates of hunting also claim that hunting provides effective population control for
nuisance species, arguing that waterfowl befoul water and recreation areas, and that deer
cause traffic accidents, browse crops and ornamentals, and carry lyme disease-infected ticks.
Hunters also assert that their activities are humane, asserting that overpopulation will be
addressed either through lingering, painful deaths by starvation or disease, or through quick
and painless execution.
Some respondents support hunting but are concerned that access to Oxbow may be being
increased too much, and ask that use be monitored and adjusted as necessary. Some
respondents ask the agency to limit expansion to what can be handled by existing
enforcement capability. Some respondents ask that waterfowl hunting at Oxbow include “the
marshes and potholes,” as well as Hop Brook near the train tracks. One respondent urges that
there be no limits on waterfowling.
One respondent suggests that pheasant stocking continue at Oxbow, but not be expanded to
Assabet.
Opposition to hunting
Opposition to hunting at the EMNWR is intense and widespread, at least within the subset of
individuals who provided comment on the CCP. When respondents differentiate between
game species, opposition to hunting turkey and grouse is common, but support for a limited
deer hunt is more common. Leaving aside public safety, and the associated question of
displacement, comments which question the wisdom of permitting (or expanding existing)
fall into four broad categories: requests for additional analysis; concern over impacts; moral
outrage; and concerns about iniquitous treatment of recreationists.
Additional Analysis
Some respondents don’t plainly oppose hunting, but ask for additional analysis to justify and
focus hunting. For example, one respondent says, “I am not in favor of hunting in that area
unless it is required to control species that have no natural means of control, and justified by
appropriate studies.” Some respondents suggest that hunting not be regarded as recreation,
but as wildlife population management, and that therefore it should be utilized only where
comprehensive biological surveys and analysis indicate it would be of value for biodiversity
or habitat protection. These respondents argue that only species with real overpopulations
should be hunted (and ask for hard evidence, rather than anecdotes of browsed ornamentals),
excluding species—such as woodcocks—that appear to be in decline. Some respondents
question whether scientific analysis will indicate that hunting in such a limited area will have
real impacts on area populations.
Summary of Comments 17